The Ultimate ‘Settlements Are Not the Problem’ Article

It must be a new year. The Washington Post has an editorial explaining that Israeli settlements are not the main problem in the Middle East. The Post editorial is amazing, since such sanity is so rare. It begins:

Two mistaken but widely held notions regarding Israeli-Palestinian peace are that the settlements are the principal obstacle to a deal and that further construction will make a Palestinian state impossible.

And then it continues by laying down a detailed, factual case that’s worth repeating:

– “Following the 1993 Oslo accords, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government, like several before it, has limited building almost entirely to areas that both sides expect Israel to annex through territorial swaps in an eventual settlement … ”

– Almost all of the Jewish settlers live on only four percent of the West Bank, the sector that Israel has been seeking to annex as part of a peace plan that was first presented twelve years ago.

– Israel’s latest construction, which will connect Maale Adumim — a short walk from Jerusalem — with the rest of the city is hardly the destruction of any chance for peace which has been portrayed in much of the Western media and by some Western governments. The worst-case scenario would be that if this corridor determined the ultimate border between two states, Palestinian motorists might have to take a detour of about ten minutes.

– Those who “are really interested in progress toward Palestinian statehood … will press [Palestinian Authority leader Mahmud] Abbas to stop using settlements as an excuse for intransigence — and cool their own overheated rhetoric.”

One of the questions I’m most often asked is about Israeli settlements. It is ridiculously easy to prove they are not the factor preventing Israel-Palestinian peace. I favor the eventual dismantlement of almost all of them — but only if and when there is a comprehensive peace which results in the annexation of some — that would be in Palestine’s territory.

That is a long way off.

The problem with demonstrating that settlements are not the problem is that it is so hard to get those arguments to a big audience in the West. Many people also have a pre-1993 image of the situation in their minds. Briefly, here are two points that make the case: the first shows that the claims about settlements are contrary to the facts; the second that they are contrary to logic.

First: the day after the Israel-PLO agreement was signed in 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin made it clear that Israel’s interpretation was that it permitted continued construction on existing settlements. The Palestinian Authority did not object, and that policy did not prevent it from negotiating over the next seven years.

Misrepresentations — deliberately? — often make people think that Israel is establishing new settlements or expanding the size of existing ones. Both claims are untrue.

Second: if the Palestinian side wants an end to settlements, that should be an incentive for reaching a peace agreement faster and thus getting rid of all settlements on the territory of the new state of Palestine. Notice that Israel — under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, no less — demolished all of the settlements in the Gaza Strip as, among other things, a sign of what could be gained by a peace deal.

Yet the Palestinian side has been in no hurry to make a deal. In theory, when it complains about settlements, the response should be: “So why don’t you compromise for peace and get rid of them, rather than having them become ‘larger?’”

But you don’t have to think this is a new idea. That was exactly what King Hussein of Jordan told the Palestine National Council, the PLO’s “legislative” body, on November 22, 1984. He explained:

The years go by … The holy and cherished land is being swallowed up every day. … How long shall we heed those among us who say: Leave it for future generations … ? What makes them believe that the circumstances of future generations will be more conducive [when postponement is merely] giving the enemy more time?

In other words, your refusal to make peace makes things worse:

We thus enabled the enemy to exploit time in order to change reality on the land of Palestine in its favor. … Brothers and sisters, because we will be harmed the most as a result of the continuation of the present state of affairs … experience taught us to renounce immobility.

Or, to put it bluntly, stop quarreling and using violence and demanding too much and expecting to gain a total victory that will wipe Israel off the map — and just make a compromise two-state solution.

That was almost thirty years ago, and the same points still apply.

To summarize:

– Most of what is said about settlements in the West isn’t true.

– If you are really being so hurt by the existence and growth of settlements, then make peace fast and get rid of them.

– If you don’t want to make peace fast and get rid of them, then settlements aren’t your problem; Israel’s existence is.

– And that means you have an unsolvable problem, and someone will reprint the above column about thirty years from now.

Click here to view the 44 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

44 Comments, 19 Threads

1.
mindRider

Regrettably it makes no difference at all reading columns about the Israeli-Palestinian-arab conflict from 30, 50 or 65 years ago. Wether it was a book I re-read by a Dutch Rabbi Soetendorp who went on Aliya in 1948 and doubled as a correspondent for the Jewish weekly in those years or an actual Jewish weekly from 1983 which I found or today’s newspaper stories on the subject, the players have changed but the situation has remained identical, very depressing.

It is hard to make any kind of critical comment to Prof. Rubin; his knowledge of Middle-Eastern and Israeli international affairs is unparalleled. So forgive me, Prof. Rubin.

You write “I favor the eventual dismantlement of almost all of them–but only if and when there is a comprehensive peace which results in the annexation of some–that would be in Palestine’s territory.”

Let us assume the theoretical construct of a comprehensive, stable, “infinitely lived” peace with all Arab states (a fantasy indeed). Why is it a given that Jews must leave “Palestine”? Why do Arabs have the right to live in Israel as equal citizens, while any Arab state in western Palestine must be Judenrein? Why is every argument about land based solely on security considerations? Do not Jews have the right to live in their ancient and historic homeland?

There is a simple, straightforward, reason that the arabs won’t make peace -
they are in a ‘no-lose’ situation. The ‘world’ will not permit the ancestral Israel to exist. In the West, those that claim they are Jews but do not even keep traditional holidays are either anti=Israel or inured to its’ existence.
The active Left make alliance with the arabs to destroy or diminish Judaism.
Where are all the liberals who cry over the destruction of far-eastern shrines, when it comes to the destruction of artifacts from the Temple Mount, I include Israelis in this criticism.

To sum up, the arabs think that they have the non-losing hand, so why should they negotiate. And why do you Professor Rubin beleice that the arabs are entitled to yet one more state?

…. The ‘people’s war of liberation’ was a concept whose validity had been plausibly demonstrated in Algeria, but had never really been tried against Israel; conventional diplomatic and military methods had been tried and had failed. Besides, it was argued, the Arab governments had always underestimated their own bargaining power because they had been afraid to mobilize it fully. Revolutionary militancy would pay, but only if it took the form of concrete action and not just verbal posturing. The Algerians, Iraqis, and Syrians who put forward such arguments were not simply out to embarrass Nassar or supplant him, but to force the pace, to keep pressure on him from the left, to undermine his new partnership with Husayn, to dissuade him from abandoning the Palestinian and other revolutionary causes altogether.

The conservative monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya had a predictably different outlook, although not as simple as one as might be supposed. To be sure, as beneficiaries of the status quo, they had no fundamental disagreement with Nassar’s and Husayn’s wish for a settlement with Israel. Yet it was their traditional desert societies that were the least capable of grasping the political subtleties of the modern world and most apt to reduce the whole Palestine problem to religious or racial dimensions – the defense of Muslim soil against unbelievers – and therefore, to preach war on Israel at any price. That it was other Arabs who would have to pay that price in blood no doubt made this conviction easier to hold. There was no harm in raising money in their kingdoms for the Fidayin [Palestinians] – that is to say, the god-fearing Fidayin of Fat’h not the atheists of al-Sa’iqa and the PFLP – provided the Fidayin really directed their fire against Israel rather than the Jordanian monarchy, and provided the protraction of the struggle did not eventually unsettle Arab society closer to home. Eventually these provisos were seen to be missing, especially with the overthrow of the Libyan monarchy in 1969. King Faisal’s enthusiasm waned.

Likewise there was a certain advantage in subsidizing the UAR for its financial losses, while urging it to maintain a stubborn posture toward Israel: this could ensure that Nasser would be preoccupied with Israel indefinitely, and deprive him of both the ability and the desire to resume his old habit of subverting monarchies. With the passage of time this reasoning also lost force, however, as it appeared that the continuing crisis had the effect of increasing the UAR’s dependence on the Soviet Union and undermining Jordan’s – and other Arabs’ – ties with the west.

These contrasting Arab viewpoints collided with each other in the Khartoum summit conference, convened at the end of August 1967. A limited number of positive results were accomplished easily: Nasser’s reconciliations with Husayn and Faisal were confirmed; Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait agreed to subsidize Jordan and the UAR for their revenue losses at a combined rate of $392 million per year (two-thirds of this sum going to the UAR); the Yemen problem, which had lost its primary significance as an Egyptian-Saudi test of strength after the June war, was finally laid to rest as the Egyptians agreed to evacuate their remaining forces.

At Khartoum it was still a little early for the Arab regimes to give much thought to the Palestinian resistance; it was not until six months later, with the brave stand of the Fidayin [Palestinians] against an Israeli attack on their base at Karamah, in Jordan, that they emerged as Arab heroes. In the early months after the June war the Palestinians, like other Arabs were already voicing their faith in the continuing struggle and their opposition of the snare of negotiations. At the UN General Assembly they dissuaded Egypt and other Arab states from supporting a resolution favouring diplomacy. At Khartoum, in the comparative privacy of a purely Arab convocation, it was not so easy to win their point, and Nasser and Husayn managed to gain the council’s endorsement of their preference to seek a “political solution” to the problem, which was defined as ‘effacing the traces of aggression,’ i.e. turning the clock back only to the 4th of June. But in return for their reluctant promise not to castigate Egypt and Jordan publicly for their preference for a deal with Israel, and to allow the formula to stand as a summit decision, the radicals extracted a companion resolution that blurred the issue considerably: there would be no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations and no peace treaty with her….

Support for the two-state BS is down the toilet here in Israel.
This idiotic ”solution” is way past it’s expiry date – the offer is no longer valid. ”Land for Peace” is a slogan for morons. Israel is moving (fast) to the political Right, as witness our current electoral campaign & the rise of Habayit Hayehudi (Jewish Home).
The way forward is to annex Area C & B + the Jordan Valley.
There will never, ever, be an Arab state west of the Jordan River.

Still, the real impediment to peace is the Arab refusal to accept a Jewish state in any borders and drop the demand to resettle all the descendants of the 1948 Arab refugees inside Israel rather than in the new Arab state (AKA “the right of return”). Until Westerners start saying it loud and clear and start pressuring the Arabs to accept a real two-states-for-two-peoples solution there isn’t even the tiniest hope of ever reaching a peace agreement.

Why would we even want a peace agreement? When has any agreement or treaty with Arabs withstood the test of time? And who would we make such an agreement with? The genocidal maniacs of Hamas? It’s time to discard false illusions of ”peace” – peace should no longer be a part of our political dialogue. The two-state solution is dead, it’s time to bury it’s rotting corpse.

“When has any agreement or treaty with Arabs withstood the test of time?”

Hmm, let’s see. The peace agreement with Faisal. Er, no, it became null and void after the French threw him out of Syria. The agreement with Abdallah I of Jordan. Well, of course, it didn’t prevent Jordan from joining the attack on Israel in 1948. The peace agreement with Egypt. Didn’t that one last? Well, at least up until the Islamic revolution. Hey, we still have the 199X peace agreement with Jordan, don’t we?

“And who would we make such an agreement with? The genocidal maniacs of Hamas?”

I suppose we’ll have to, no? We can compromise with them. How about we allow them, as a good will gesture, to kill half the Jews now, and the rest after signing the peace agreement? Of course, providing they’ll recognize Israel’s right to exist, at least retroactively. I think that might just work. I’m sure the Euros and Obama would appreciate it. We may even get a postmortem Nobel Peace Prize and a nice little memorial museum funded by George Soros. Wouldn’t that be sufficient? What more do you want?

Terry,
Good to see you back on this site!
I do pray Benett will get enough seats to prevent bibi lying down in front of the Us muslim brotherhood chief …..
I heard with dismay that E1 building is frozen…
Good new civil year to all!

Trump, good to hear from you too.
So far, so good, with Bennett’s campaign, looks like between 15-18 seats if polls can be believed.
I read the same thing re: construction in E-1, does that surprise you with Netanyahu? When the building policy was first announced, I didn’t believe it would actually be carried out. You can’t believe anything before elections.
A good secular New Year’s to you too, be well, my friend.

The problem is that if Israel does not endorse a two state solution, then in 2020 (only seven years from now), the Arab population in Israel (including Gaza, Judea, and Samaria) will exceed the Jewish population.

At that point all they would have to do is to step forward, claim their rights and basically take over.

Rejecting the two-state solution doesn’t mean annexing Gaza and all of Judea and Samaria. Israel may just annex “area C” (which is mostly Jewish) and leave the Arabs in Gaza and the “West Bank” to bewail their missed chances for a more favorable settlement. But even if Israel were to annex all of Judea and Samaria, it wouldn’t give the local Arab Muslims a strong claim to Israeli citizenship. Common sense and all historical precedent suggest that these people, who have rejected many generous peace offers and resorted to terrorist insurrection in the wild hope of winning everything in the end, should have been expelled long ago.

But Israel can’t claim to be a democracy if it holds onto the territories and doesn’t give Palestinians voting rights. It would be like USA capturing a hostile Mexico, keeping it forever, refusing to give Mexicans the right of citizenship, and then claiming to be a democracy.

The demographic argument is a myth based on phoney census numbers & equally phoney projections. It’s been disproven so many times yet, like many myths, has taken on a life of it’s own. Yoram Ettinger, for one, has written extensively on the phoney population numbers.

If demographics are no worry, then why not just annex the land and make the Arabs living on it Israeli citizens? Palestinians don’t like Zionism, but they aren’t anymore hostile to Jewish ethnic supremacy than the Israeli Arab citizenry are.

Or just be honest for a change: we can tolerate a few non-Jews, just not too many.

So what you’re practically saying is that we must unilaterally withdraw, no matter what are the consequences to us. That’s practically what the West is telling us.

The West deceived us with the help of our own naive leftists. You’ve lured us into this mortal trap with talk about peace. I no longer believe that you ever meant peace. You have left no credibility whatsoever. Today I believe you’ve lied to us all along. You just wanted to appease the Muslims, no matter what’s the cost to us. You sold us like the Brits and French sold Czechoslovakia to appease the Nazis, all the while pretending to be our “allies”.

What are our options in this situation? First, we’ve already left Gaza, even though you insist to stick it to us anyway, but we’re not there. The Arabs have it. They use it to fire rockets at us. As for Judea and Samaria, Stan is right that we don’t have to annex it. The reality on the ground is that the Arabs have an autonomy on nearly all of it. I think that’s how it should remain for now, as long as the Arabs don’t intend to make peace – no new Arab state in our belly, from which they can better attack us, and no annexation to Israel either. Considering their intentions and that the entire Middle East is now awash with militant radicalism and threats of war, this threat in our belly should be contained for now rather than be allowed to increase tenfold. A new Arab state in our belly can be discussed only if the Arabs ever seriously and sincerely give up their dream of wiping us off. If they don’t, we can annex only some parts that are of major strategic importance or inhabitet with Jews. The rest will continue to have an Arab autonomy on about 90% of the territory. If they ever give up their genocidal plans for us, only then they could turn it into a state, or join it to Jordan or whatever.

I don’t see why I should constantly worry about the statehood of people who want to destroy my country and kill my people. They and their Western buddies should be thankful we don’t carpet-bomb them to hell. We’re so stupid we even give them fertility treatment in our hospitals. Until recently convicted terrorists doing time in our prisons could take academic courses and get an academic degree at the expense of the Israeli tax payer. I, as an Israeli citizen, couldn’t get free high education, but a convicted terrorist who wants to destroy Israel and commit genocide against the Jews could, at my expense! Why is it even conceivable that Jews should give a state to people with a Nazi-like mindset, so they would be better positioned in their continous attempt to wipe us off? If the West were really humane as you claim to be, the West would have had something to say about the aggressive, militant, toxic, genocidal ideology that is the mainstream in the Middle East and is the root cause of all wars and of the sorry state of this region and its people in general. But you’re not humane. You’re the same calculated cold-blooded murderers that you have always been, and your humanitarian pretences are nothing but a sham and a travesty.

Of course, I understand perfectly well that the West will not just stand by and watch, but will actively threaten to shoot us unless we commit suicide. However, that seemingly perfect murder plan has one weakness – the public is often less calculated and cold-blooded than its leadership. I’ve noticed that a lot of people who are exposed to accurate information about the Middle East change their minds about Israel. Of course, I have no hope for accurate information in the mass media. The only hope is that the true face of Islam will continue to be gradually exposed in ways that even the leftist propagandists won’t be able to cover up anymore, so more common folks would understand what we’re facing. It will also change the political landscape in the West, though we can’t tell in what ways. If the “classical” far-right rises in Europe it’ll be bad for everyone, above all for the Euros. But if what they call the “new far-right” – those who are more assertive about Islam in Europe, but are not racist or fascist – gain more power, then these parties don’t believe in appeasing totalitarian aggressors and are more pro-Israel than any other alternative. Of course, the American president is the most important figure, and we currently have one of the worst possible, but he only has four more years, so the question is how much damage he can inflict in this period – it will no doubt be a lot, but perhaps we (and you) can still survive him. Then the question is who’s gonna be the next president.

The thing is that the current, “post-colonial”, Marxist paradigm can’t survive the test of reality, particularly regarding Islam. Denial is the first reaction, but at some point reality becomes too aggressively insistent to deny. A paradigm shift is a long-term process that takes decades to unfold (it started in the 90s with a few lone voices). So Israel is now facing some very difficult years, after which things are likely to start changing due to changes in public opinion in the West. It might take a decade, it might take more, it might take less, we can’t know. Our challenge is to survive those difficult years. Our ability to do so depends on many factors.

True, the Muslims with their leftist allies created an almost perfect death trap for us, but their final success is not yet guaranteed. You can isolate us politically, but isolating us economically to a lethal degree is more complicated since we have technologies, both civilian and military, many people want, and our intelligence capabilities can be as useful to your rivals as they are to you. If you throw us under the bus don’t count on us just lying there waiting to be run over. There might be some surprising new alliances you’re not going to like. Besides, there are some American corporations that won’t succumb so quickly to boycotts because they depend on our technologies and will have difficulty replacing them on such a short notice. And as for military intervention, what if we declare that any invasion of our borders will be met with a nuclear response? After all, we will have nothing to lose, so would you really want to test if we’re bluffing? Then there are possible alliances within the Middle East. There are non-Muslims that will need protection and most likely won’t get it from you. And there are non-Arabs that may want to take advantage of the new political situation to gain independense. Look at the location of Kurdistan, for instance. There’s also the inter-Muslim power struggle, so if one Muslim side feels too threatened by another Muslim side, a temporary, limited, secret cooperation on matters of mutual interest is not out of the question. And there are also all the allies you have betrayed around the world. Particularly the ones to which you promised to sell defense systems and then, under Obama, broke your promises in order to appease various rivals and enemies of yours. They just might decide that since you can’t be trusted, it won’t be such a bad idea to collaborate with us in developing such defense systems. Many political factors around the world are not completely predictable at this point, such as, for instance, the state of the European Union. New developments may keep you too busy or provide new opportunities for us. And then there is the wild card – what if it turns out Israel really does have oil?

Of course, many of these possibilities might not materialize, but my point is that the political climate in the West is not permanent – sooner or later the Muslims will overplay their hand, the slow and gradual shift in public opinion has already begun and at some point will ripen. We have to survive the period of time until it happens. We might fail, but it’s far from being a certainty since we can be quite useful to those who would not follow your lead to its final destination. The fact is our “allies” already joined our enemies in spite of the false pretence, which makes our situation dire indeed, but not yet hopeless. What you should take into account before making any decisive move is that if you betray us and we do manage to survive it, you will lose control over us permanently. Things will never go back to how they were before because we’ll never again put all our eggs in just one basket.

You can deny facts all you like. The problem is real. The Arab population in what we call Israel continues to grow faster than the Jewish population. It has been doing that for a long time. Go talk to Israeli demographers. They knew of this problem since the early 1970s at least. At one time there were some who wondered about ways to legitimately gerrymander voting districts. But they realized that it would be a stop-gap solution at best.

The problem exists, and the question is what to do about it. A despotic Islamic regime might commit genocide (like Turkey did to the Armenians). Israel could not and would not do that.

The only thing Israel can do is to give the Palestinians a state of their own. It solves the population growth issue. The problem is that the Palestinian Arabs are not interested in a two state solution and they never have been.

They are gearing up for war. There will be a conflict. It will get very bloody. I don’t think Israel should hold anything back. Arabs seem to have this notion that low level conflict can continue and somehow something will go their way. It won’t. However as the years go by, their numbers increase, and the conflict continues to get more and more serious.

At this stage, the Palestinians are avoiding the two state solution because they know that they can sustain and slowly ramp up the conflict they seek and eventually get everything.

I don’t have anything nice to say about this situation. Nearby nations such as Jordan and Egypt are scared of this growing and militant Palestinian population. Despite Egypt being run by the Muslim Brotherhood, they too are getting scared. The only people who don’t give a damn are the Iranians because they do not border these people. They support Assad because he is a bulwark against these Palestinians as well.

There may be some hope for a longer term tacit agreement between Israel and her neighbors to deal with these militants, but they are not going to do so publicly as long as they maintain significant portions of the Palestinian militants in their midst.

The solution is to start a propaganda campaign against the militant and misogynist Islamic hate farm called Gaza and “the West Bank”. The mothers have to start saying enough is enough. This evil shahid nonsense only works as long as their birth rates remain high. If women realize that they have a dim future at best, they will back off. Beaming western culture in Arabic, aimed right at them is the solution.

The only thing that will put a stop to this is a shrinking Palestinian population. The only way to get that is to give women power. And to do that, we need to propagandize against Fundamentalist Islam. It’s an ugly solution. It won’t win any friends, but it is the least ugly option in a sea of very ugly options.

First, re the demographic problem, if Israel doesn’t annex the territories they don’t get Israeli citizenships, so they can’t take over Israel. I understand the West will demand we either unilaterally withdraw or give them Israeli citizenships – both options are suicidal for us, – or else the world will do such and such to us – economic sanctions, arms embargoes, even military intervention – you are capable of anything, I don’t trust you even one little bit. My entire post above referred to our options in case the West gives us this ultimatum, “either kill yourselves or we will kill you”.

I was originally for a two-state solution, as long as it is a solution to the conflict, that it results in peace, not if the new Arab state is used to attack us. Under the circumstances the West should accept that the only way to manage the situation for now is that for now they will only have autonomy and not an independent state, nor Israeli citizenship. Well, either that or the West should find a way to convince the Arabs to accept a Jewish state, stop the Nazi-like indoctrination of their populations and become peaceful, but I don’t really see that happening. However, currently the West isn’t ready to accept anything but a conclusive “solution” NOW, RIGHT AWAY!, even if this “solution” means suicide for us. Some years from now the Western public opinion may change and allow for a bit more space.

As for a unilateral withdrawal, this option can even be contemplated only if it is a partial withdrawal and we keep control on some strategically crucial areas. The West isn’t ready to consider that either. We are simply demanded to sacrifice ourselves, period.

As for your other suggestions, feminism can work miracles, but if you read Hamas charter you’d see at least the more radical Muslims already have a paranoid attitude toward that. As they see it, it’s a Western conspiracy to conquer them through their women. According to Hamas charter, they believe the women have an important role in their society, which is to bring men to the world and educate them to become jihadists, and feminism will get in the way. Besides, women eqaulity is un-Islamic and movements like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in general will not let it get in the way of their plans for a sharia state.

Promoting Western values in general directly to the Muslim population, even against the will of their leadership, is a great idea, except Israel doesn’t have the means to do it on its own, nor will the Muslims regard it credible since they believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Muslim scriptures say the Jews spread corruption (Western values are considered corruption). The West can try something like that, but it’s a long-term plan, it will not have immediate effect. And anyway for that to happen the Western attitude needs to change. Simply murdering us will not even rid you of the problems because it’s very far from being limited to the territories. But as long as the West is in the grip of this paradigm of multiculturalism, moral relativism, self-flagellation and self-destruction, it will be impossible. Even students coming from the Middle East to Western universities learn there that the West is evil and Islam is good. Even if they originally thought that Western culture is better, they are persuaded by Western professors to change their minds. Even saying that Western culture is better than Islamic culture is considered racist in the West and might cost you your job. So I don’t see how such a climate allows for promoting Western culture and its values beyond its borders.

Demography isn’t limited to the territories either. The Muslim wild population growth is only possible due to Western technology and Western aid. Of course, you never make this aid conditional on, say, accepting a two-state solution, not carrying out terrorist attacks against India, or even just not harboring Bin Laden. That would be too impolite and will infuriate the Muslims even more, so better pretend all is cool and continue business as usual. If the EU and US collapse financially the Third World will starve. If the West were truly humane, it would have promoted the Western values that lead to technological progress and prosperity instead of just sustaining the population growth with aid. But again, you’re not even allowed to say that Western culture is better, so how can you possibly promote it? Instead you have to pretend to think that killing “apostates”, gays and women who went “astray” (by Muslim standards), oppressing women, severly persecuting religious minorities, striving to exterminate the Jews, severely limiting freedom of speech and raising your children to be shahids are just as good as not killing “apostates” and gays, not oppressing women, not severly persecuting religious minorities, not striving to exterminate the Jews and allowing freedom of speech. Every value is just as good as its opposite – that’s what you’re supposed to think, otherwise you’re a racist. So how can you promote Western values? What you’re doing in reality is promote Islam.

In short, whichever way you look at it, the future looks bleak. The only reform we see in the Muslim world isn’t moderation, but rather the takeover of the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. The West, on the other hand, becomes more and more insanely leftist, if that’s the right word to describe this madness, so it’s totally unequipped to deal with the emerging reality or even recognize it. We can expect war. And if the West doesn’t do anything to fundamentally transform the trajectory of its economy we can expect huge problems in most of the world. To even start dealing with any of these problems the West has to change its attitude and discard assumptions, conventions and cherished dogmas that simply don’t work, in favor of a more realistic worldview. If that doesn’t happen there’s not much Israel can do on its own. We can only try to survive the best we can in a world that becomes increasingly madder and crueler. I can’t see how that can include letting our mortal enemies freely and easily target all of Israel with rockets and mortars from Judea and Samaria. We’re in enough trouble as it is without giving them improved strategic positions, free flow of weapons, and the easiest access to our most densely populated areas and every point of crucial strategic importance. If you demand we either do that or give them Israeli citizenships, we’ll have to act against your will and try to survive your wrath until you change your minds and understand that if we don’t get peace they don’t get a state.

Several years ago I saw a family which emigrated from from the US and was building an (at least partially subsidized) home in one of the disputed areas. I support Israel and admirte their courage and work and education ethic but I did not admire this family which was taking financial advantage of some Jewish law. To me they are freeloaders. Neither do I adcmire the law which allowed a young killer who had murderedc another teen and fled to Israel from Maryland. He was allowed to do this because his parents had come from Israel.
Israel should stop situations like this. Many jews, but not all, have suffered greatly. They deserve that country. People who are living in the US, and are just capitalizing on what they can get. do not.

I wonder how Obama’s Jewish cultists will react to this? My guesses are:
1) they will find some way of rationalizing it, like, it will bring peace closer, 2) ignore it,
3) become anti-Israel and antisemitic themselves
4) proclaim that Obama is acting on bad advice.

Your talk of settlements is pointless. It has no bearing on the true issues that divide the world and Islam. And it has no bearing on the Jewish-Islamic issues in the Middle East. It is just a talking point for the mindless western politicos who do not understand or will not educatate themselves about the real world.

If there is ever peace in the Middle East, it will be for as long as it takes Islam to catch its breath, re arm and get back to attacking Israel. In other words, there will never be a lasting peace in the Middle East. Islam hates the Jewish people so much that they want to destroy them. They are at permanent war (jihad) with Israel and the rest of the non-Muslim world so there will never be a lasting peace. Just listen to what Islam says about Jews, Jihad, the global caliphate, and the destruction of the Infidel and take their talk at face value when the Imams speak about these things.

Israel can have a lasting peace – sort of. They just have to do the unthinkable – kill off all the Arab fools that surround them. Of course they would be pilloried by the Western nations for year upon year if they did. I just wonder how long and loud the outcry would be should the shoe be on the other foot and the Arabs were able to realize their dream of wiping out all of the Jews. Not long I’m thinking.

It always surprises me when obviously intelligent people hod on to failed dogma. Case in point Barry Rubin still supports giving our land to our enemies. Been there done that and it failed miserably. The problem is while well versed in modern and biblical history Barry still believes he can come up with a plan wiser and more assured of a positive outcome then the plan
G-d provided.

The plan itself could not be simpler or more humane.

In the Land of Israel only Jews may vote. Simple and done without bloodshed. The Land of Israel’s borders are determined by what The Master of the Universe decided. At it’s maximum that comprises one-half of one percent of the middle east. Sounds fair doesn’t it?

Now those non-Jews who wish to remain in Israel can do so as long as they are peaceful and law abiding. They, their families and property are fully protected under law.

Before the hand ringing over the non-Jews who were born on Jewish soil and THEIR presumed right to citizenship let me point out that the following countries DO NOT award citizenship based on the concept of ” jus soli ” which means born on their soil-

John, you make my point about the western mindset. You have no clue about Islam’s permanent jihad (war) on the world. Even if they subdued the entire world, which is their task, there would still be no peace, because jihad is so engrained in their minds that they would find something to fight.

Good article, Prof. Rubin, as always. But I wish you would elaborate on the phenomena of the Washington Post NOT publishing a misleading and dishonest report. The only explanation that appears somewhat sensible is the monkeys in a room scenario, where if you put a bunch of monkeys in a room with a bunch of typewriters for an infinite amount of time one of them will produce a line from Shakespeare. Apparently by adopting some variant of this method the Washington Post has produced an accurate article.

I’m sorry Terry, Eilat, but I think that you are crossing the line with your bad attitude. Maybe you should speak when spoken to. Land of Peace is making Israel a friendly place in my opinion, so next time says “in my own opinion”.